I gathered feedback about the note options from a couple of key persons involved in our LW DITA project, each having their own angle on the subject (one DITA & technology expert, one software developer, one other information architect):
100% behind Option #1.
Ullakaisa Kalander
Information Architect, Information Services
Citec Oy Ab
E-mail:
www.citec.com
From: [mailto:]
On Behalf Of Carlos Evia
Sent: 09 May 2016 16:14
Cc:
Subject: Re: [dita-lightweight-dita] Notes in Lightweight DITA
And here’s another vote for option 1
Carlos
---
Carlos Evia, Ph.D.
Director of Professional and Technical Writing
Associate Professor of Technical Communication
Department of English
Center for Human-Computer Interaction
Virginia Tech
Blacksburg, VA 24061-0112
(540)200-8201
On May 7, 2016, at 5:34 PM, Noz Urbina <> wrote:
I'm with Scott for option 1. Same reasons. But I am torn on my second choice. My instinct says 3 but that's just my gut.
On 6 May 2016 9:52 p.m., "Scott Hudson" <> wrote:
I vote Option 1 for consistency in authoring between full and lightweight. I think the
other options differ too much from full DITA and could lead to potential confusion.
Close second for Option 2, as I could see potential use for hazard-statements where the
hazard symbol could be contained in a dt and the body of the hazard statement in the dd.
I still prefer Option 1 though.
Thanks and best regards,
--Scott
Scott Hudson
Content Strategist
Training & Documentation
Global Services & Support
<image001.jpg>
Jeppesen
|
Digital Aviation |
Boeing
55 Inverness Drive East |
Englewood, CO 80112 |
www.jeppesen.com
From:
[mailto:]
On Behalf Of Michael Priestley
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2016 1:46 PM
To:
Subject: [dita-lightweight-dita] Notes in Lightweight DITA
We discussed a number of options in our last SC call - feedback/suggestions/votes needed to help us move
forward.
Option 1: We implement <note>just as in full DITA, but with a subset of potential values
- eg caution, warning, danger, trouble, notice, or no type (generic "note") and a constrained content model (maybe just <p>, <ul>, or <ol>)
Option 2: We implement <notelist>
(or some other name slightly different from <note>) as a specialization of <dl> with a <dlentry> representing a note. The text of the <dlterm> could trigger specialized behaviors
(if it's from the short list like caution, warning, etc.) or be passed through as is (if it's not recognized by either default or override processes)
Option 3: We implement <note-type>as a specialized phrase element (specialized off of
either <ph> or <b>) available in any <p> that turns the <p> into a note. As with the dlentry option, the type of the note would be entered as text that could trigger specialized behaviors if recognized, or be used to apply a custom label.
Michael Priestley, Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)
Enterprise Content Technology Strategist
http://dita.xml.org/blog/michael-priestley
